Re: [videoblogging] Re: Movies v TV (was...My Amends...)
Friday, December 28, 2007, 7:39:14 PM, Brook Hinton wrote: WHAT good tv? As an aside, I have been watching episodes of the old Max Headroom drama series from the 1980s over the last few days and they are so much part of this discussion of old vs new media and advertsing-driven content that it's scary. Once you get past the 80's haircuts and the grunge-punk sets it's fascinating and thoughtful stuff. A world where turning a TV off is illegal, ad minutes are traded instead of stocks and shares, and death is just another way to stop channel-hopping. I don't know if the episodes are available to buy, but I found two full series available via bittorrent. See also: http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/M/htmlM/maxheadroom/maxheadroom.htm http://www.theora.org/faq/#15 -- Frank Carver http://www.makevideo.org.uk
[videoblogging] Re: Movies v TV (was...My Amends...)
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry I couldn't quote, something weird with the formatting Frank, I think you are mixing up different segments of the corporate media a bit here. There are the loyal viewers of the repetitive television market with the one shot nature of the movies. They are entirely different markets with entirely different sales models and entirely different customers. For the most part, the movies are owned by corporations and TV is sponsored by corporations. Of course this is starting to change a bit with product placement and such, but it's still quite true. In television the viewer is the product being sold. The idea that the viewer gets what they want on TV is laughable. The corporate advertisers are the customers and they get what they want. That's why we have more and more commercials and less and less content. I agree. It's not possible for the viewer to be the consumer in the televison model. The viewer gives ZERO dollars *directly* towards video production. The viewer has the money that the Advertisers are hoping to get. You get that money by serving them advertisements that hopefully imprint in their minds what they need to buy or eat or where they need to go for vacation. You can't serve an advertisement channel, because nobody would watch it, so you have to make content to get the people to sit there and watch your advertisements. The content is made by a production team. The production team gets its money from the channel or whatever it's broadcasting on. To sell a show, you need to make a pilot for use as Proof of Concept and also to run by focus groups. You play your pilot for viewers, but, again, they don't give the production team any money towards the creation of their show, AND even though their responses are recorded and paid attention to, they don't have any actual SAY over what happens with the show. So that leaves the channel or network as the provider of the funds for the show. Plus they have to pay for their real estate, electricity, lights, equipment, staff Where does this money come from? Advertisers. While you're pitching shows to stations, they're pitching advertising time to advertisers based on the demographic that they feel are going to tune in to your show. Of course, there are other income sources for the networks, AND for the production teams (like the team could also do corporate video work to keep the lights on), but I'm talking about the specific flow of money affecting decision-making around shows. Except for stuff like viewer donations to PBS, the viewer has ZERO monetary involvement with the creation of shows, AND there is nowhere you can go as a viewer to vote for the next show you'd like to see. Viewers are not consulted when a new show is coming on. All of a sudden, marketing teams start selling you the show. You see stuff on the internet. They use commercial space on popular shows to publicize the upcoming shows. The buzz is created BY the marketing teams because THEY'RE the ones that know a show is coming on. Even if the buzz appears to come from the viewers, it was created by marketers. So, like Jan and Ron are saying, the viewer is the huntED, not the huntER. While it's true that a mass exodus by viewers can make a show go down the tubes, that's because the station won't be able to sell advertising space on that show for more $$,$$$ than some other show, and it would be bad business to leave it running. The viewers pay for cable subscriptions, for instance, which is spread out amongst ALL the channels they get and ALL the shows on all those channels. Advertisers pay SPECIFICALLY to advertise on a certain channel or a certain block of shows or a certain show. The cable company gets the viewers' money REGARDLESS of whether they watch a particular show, so they can't be the ones who get what they want in this scenario. The goal for the advertisers is to get their money back by having the viewers remember their products and/or services and buy them. So, as far as shows, the advertisers pay to have customers (the viewers) in a particular demographic delivered to them. The viewers pay subscription fees, which cover ALL of their television entertainment. Even if you pay for HBO, for instance, you get The Sopranos and Oz and everything else on that network. There is no sole subscription to The Sopranos, so it's not possible that the viewers have ANY say whatsoever in how it's made, except for not showing up. The viewers aren't the Romans in the stands, making decisions. They're the victims in the pit. Run out of victims, and there's no show. -- Bill Cammack CammackMediaGroup.com In the movies, the movie is the product being sold, and the viewers are, to a large degree the customers. The movies are not based on the repetitive 'subscriber' based model, which means a movie can be totally shitty viewing
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Movies v TV (was...My Amends...)
I have to agree with Frank here. I don't believe sitcom writers sit down and discuss how to control their audiences into buying toasters strudel. I think they just try to write funny shows, or dramatic shows, etc. (keyword: try) Shows that are likely to get good ratings/demographics get picked up. I'd be interested in hearing a specific example to support the other theory, let alone examples showing that that theory represents the majority of TV content. People will watch good tv and advertisers will spend their money on the demographics they seek. On Dec 28, 2007 1:29 PM, Frank Sinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great discussion - perhaps the briefness of my post was misinterpreted. I'll focus my comments on TV. In the traditional TV biz: 1) Ratings are king. 2) Ratings / demographics / content as a package are sold to advertisers. Studios evaluate new projects based on who and how big the audience is going to be, then how attractive the total package would be to advertisers. The ultimate influence is up to the viewers in deciding what to watch. (ok, that was made very simplistic - but at the end of the day, it is the viewers with that remote control who decide what to watch that influences these decisions.) The great part of new media is that you have direct contact with audiences. You don't need that studio exec middle man to decide if they think there will be an audience or not. Regards, -Frank http://www.mefeedia.com - Discover the Video Web --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson k9disc@ wrote: Sorry I couldn't quote, something weird with the formatting Frank, I think you are mixing up different segments of the corporate media a bit here. There are the loyal viewers of the repetitive television market with the one shot nature of the movies. They are entirely different markets with entirely different sales models and entirely different customers. For the most part, the movies are owned by corporations and TV is sponsored by corporations. Of course this is starting to change a bit with product placement and such, but it's still quite true. In television the viewer is the product being sold. The idea that the viewer gets what they want on TV is laughable. The corporate advertisers are the customers and they get what they want. That's why we have more and more commercials and less and less content. I agree. It's not possible for the viewer to be the consumer in the televison model. The viewer gives ZERO dollars *directly* towards video production. The viewer has the money that the Advertisers are hoping to get. You get that money by serving them advertisements that hopefully imprint in their minds what they need to buy or eat or where they need to go for vacation. You can't serve an advertisement channel, because nobody would watch it, so you have to make content to get the people to sit there and watch your advertisements. The content is made by a production team. The production team gets its money from the channel or whatever it's broadcasting on. To sell a show, you need to make a pilot for use as Proof of Concept and also to run by focus groups. You play your pilot for viewers, but, again, they don't give the production team any money towards the creation of their show, AND even though their responses are recorded and paid attention to, they don't have any actual SAY over what happens with the show. So that leaves the channel or network as the provider of the funds for the show. Plus they have to pay for their real estate, electricity, lights, equipment, staff Where does this money come from? Advertisers. While you're pitching shows to stations, they're pitching advertising time to advertisers based on the demographic that they feel are going to tune in to your show. Of course, there are other income sources for the networks, AND for the production teams (like the team could also do corporate video work to keep the lights on), but I'm talking about the specific flow of money affecting decision-making around shows. Except for stuff like viewer donations to PBS, the viewer has ZERO monetary involvement with the creation of shows, AND there is nowhere you can go as a viewer to vote for the next show you'd like to see. Viewers are not consulted when a new show is coming on. All of a sudden, marketing teams start selling you the show. You see stuff on the internet. They use commercial space on popular shows to publicize the upcoming shows. The buzz is created BY the marketing teams because THEY'RE the ones that know a show is coming on. Even if the buzz appears to come from the viewers, it was created by marketers. So, like Jan
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Movies v TV (was...My Amends...)
People will watch good tv and advertisers will spend their money on the demographics they seek. WHAT good tv? (sorry, couldn't resist. and ok there is a LITTLE bit of it but...) This might hold water if there was a whole lot of good tv out there with which to test the theory, but the economic model doesn't support the creation of it, for reasons better outlined here already by others. ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Movies v TV (was...My Amends...)
good tv = shows that the vast crowd will settle on and lean back. in other words, the good crap. On Dec 28, 2007 2:39 PM, Brook Hinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: People will watch good tv and advertisers will spend their money on the demographics they seek. WHAT good tv? (sorry, couldn't resist. and ok there is a LITTLE bit of it but...) This might hold water if there was a whole lot of good tv out there with which to test the theory, but the economic model doesn't support the creation of it, for reasons better outlined here already by others. ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Movies v TV (was...My Amends...)
Advertisers normally like safety. This makes certain kinds of content risky to them, and so if content only gets made to suit them, it has a seriously limiting effect. We now live in an era where if you dont seek ad revenue, then you have the possibility to make stuff that is free from this limitation, and still have more than a few people see it. This has not thus far lead to a huge quantity of radical alternative stuff emerging, so advertising is far from the only factor. There are tons of reasons why the masses could be considered to be asleep, and why there are not all that many people making compelling content to wake them up. I suggest that in places such as the USA and the UK, we are at a peak of free speech. The barriers to speaking your mind are the lowest they will ever be, but its not much of a threat because it occurs at a timer where there arent so many free ears and free minds to do anything with the free speech. If circumstances change, then free speech may become a threat and will be crushed using all the laws being passed this decade. But for now we are doped up on consumption, so its easier to ignore than crush. If people are having a nice dream, why would they want to be woken up? When the nightmare arrives, they will be desperately seeking a saviour to wake them. I dread to think what who they will end up listening to, hopefully some people will be talking a lot of sense and wont get eliminated. Maybe the net will be a tool that sometimes helps humanity make the right decisions in a difficult era, maybe it will end up a mess of competing propaganda, time will tell. Better Bad News seems to cover several of the themes at hand, including being a show that isnt 'safe', being political, being very worried about the future, and in the latest video mentioning Scoble, in relation to Obama and the S-1959 bill which is seen as a an anti- thought crimes on the net thang! Anyway that particular bill is probably worthy of its own conversation. http://www.betterbadnews.com/ Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Frank Sinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great discussion - perhaps the briefness of my post was misinterpreted. I'll focus my comments on TV. In the traditional TV biz: 1) Ratings are king. 2) Ratings / demographics / content as a package are sold to advertisers. Studios evaluate new projects based on who and how big the audience is going to be, then how attractive the total package would be to advertisers. The ultimate influence is up to the viewers in deciding what to watch. (ok, that was made very simplistic - but at the end of the day, it is the viewers with that remote control who decide what to watch that influences these decisions.) The great part of new media is that you have direct contact with audiences. You don't need that studio exec middle man to decide if they think there will be an audience or not. Regards, -Frank http://www.mefeedia.com - Discover the Video Web --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack billcammack@ wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson k9disc@ wrote: Sorry I couldn't quote, something weird with the formatting Frank, I think you are mixing up different segments of the corporate media a bit here. There are the loyal viewers of the repetitive television market with the one shot nature of the movies. They are entirely different markets with entirely different sales models and entirely different customers. For the most part, the movies are owned by corporations and TV is sponsored by corporations. Of course this is starting to change a bit with product placement and such, but it's still quite true. In television the viewer is the product being sold. The idea that the viewer gets what they want on TV is laughable. The corporate advertisers are the customers and they get what they want. That's why we have more and more commercials and less and less content. I agree. It's not possible for the viewer to be the consumer in the televison model. The viewer gives ZERO dollars *directly* towards video production. The viewer has the money that the Advertisers are hoping to get. You get that money by serving them advertisements that hopefully imprint in their minds what they need to buy or eat or where they need to go for vacation. You can't serve an advertisement channel, because nobody would watch it, so you have to make content to get the people to sit there and watch your advertisements. The content is made by a production team. The production team gets its money from the channel or whatever it's broadcasting on. To sell a show, you need to make a pilot for use as Proof of Concept and also to run by focus groups. You play your pilot for viewers, but, again, they don't give the production team any
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Movies v TV (was...My Amends...)
On Dec 28, 2007, at 11:34 AM, Patrick Delongchamp wrote: I have to agree with Frank here. I don't believe sitcom writers sit down and discuss how to control their audiences into buying toasters strudel. I think they just try to write funny shows, or dramatic shows, etc. (keyword: try) perhaps, but it seems very possible that they discuss writing for a specific demographic that meets the approval, er appeals to, certain advertisers [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Movies v TV (was...My Amends...)
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Frank Sinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great discussion - perhaps the briefness of my post was misinterpreted. I'll focus my comments on TV. In the traditional TV biz: 1) Ratings are king. 2) Ratings / demographics / content as a package are sold to advertisers. Agreed. Definitely. Studios evaluate new projects based on who and how big the audience is going to be, then how attractive the total package would be to advertisers. The ultimate influence is up to the viewers in deciding what to watch. (ok, that was made very simplistic - but at the end of the day, it is the viewers with that remote control who decide what to watch that influences these decisions.) Yes... and No. :D Viewers absolutely decide with their remote controls what to watch. If they disappear, meaning the numbers drop off for a show that was doing well, that show will very likely disappear as well. My point is that the viewers have control over the DESTINY of a show, but not the MAKING or GREEN-LIGHTING of the show. Content creation for television is a shot in the dark. This is why the stars get paid 20 million dollars to be in movies... Because if you release the exact same dumb-ass movie WITHOUT Samuel L. Jackson or John Travolta or Tom Cruise, NOBODY will come to see it and you won't get your money back OR make a profit, which is the whole point of investing in films in the first place. Television shows start with pitches. The viewers have NOTHING to do with that process. Yes, once a show is slated and they start publicizing it, the viewers can collectively agree NOT to watch it, and the show will be doomed. However, before that happens, you show your pilot to what you consider to be your demographic and you ask the focus group for feedback. If these average joes don't like your show and tell you why, you might have to go back to the drawing board. That's NOT because the viewers have *power*, but like I said before... if you don't have victims, nobody's coming to the Colosseum. The Romans in the stands are the advertisers, who pay money for advertising space on the shows. Commercials work the same way. You do your animatics or photomatics and then you show them to a focus group BEFORE you film an actual commercial. Regardless of which one was the prettiest or most complex or whomever's pet project, the commercial that's going to get made is the one that made the average joes REMEMBER the name of the product as well as WHY they NEEDED that product. :) The viewers have ZERO say in commercial production. That's what ad execs and art directors are for. :D So I don't disagree with what you're saying. We're talking about two different phases of the process... A) Making it happen and B) Keeping the show on the air. -- Bill Cammack CammackMediaGroup.com The great part of new media is that you have direct contact with audiences. You don't need that studio exec middle man to decide if they think there will be an audience or not. Regards, -Frank http://www.mefeedia.com - Discover the Video Web --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack billcammack@ wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson k9disc@ wrote: Sorry I couldn't quote, something weird with the formatting Frank, I think you are mixing up different segments of the corporate media a bit here. There are the loyal viewers of the repetitive television market with the one shot nature of the movies. They are entirely different markets with entirely different sales models and entirely different customers. For the most part, the movies are owned by corporations and TV is sponsored by corporations. Of course this is starting to change a bit with product placement and such, but it's still quite true. In television the viewer is the product being sold. The idea that the viewer gets what they want on TV is laughable. The corporate advertisers are the customers and they get what they want. That's why we have more and more commercials and less and less content. I agree. It's not possible for the viewer to be the consumer in the televison model. The viewer gives ZERO dollars *directly* towards video production. The viewer has the money that the Advertisers are hoping to get. You get that money by serving them advertisements that hopefully imprint in their minds what they need to buy or eat or where they need to go for vacation. You can't serve an advertisement channel, because nobody would watch it, so you have to make content to get the people to sit there and watch your advertisements. The content is made by a production team. The production team gets its money from the channel or whatever it's broadcasting on. To sell a show, you need to make a pilot for use as Proof of Concept and also to run by focus groups. You play your pilot for viewers,
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Movies v TV (was...My Amends...)
Well this whole thread I've been wondering what the blowback is going to be on my free speech, Steve. I'd like to solicit some sponsorship. I've been trying to do it for a long time. I would be an excellent spokesperson for somebody's product. I'm good with the media, I'm articulate and friendly, not too terribly bad looking. I don't have problems speaking in favor of products that I believe in. I don't have a problem with others doing so. I don't have problems with corporations. I do however have a problem with corporations controlling society - writing laws, exploiting people, and creating problems for society without accountability or responsibility. Limited liability is good, leveraging power and freedom to dominate is bad. I speak out online pretty strongly about these things, but I don't speak out about them in public in my backyard the way I should. The reason is that I'm afraid of the repercussions on my business at home. We might have a lot of free speech, but that speech can be very costly. People lose their jobs for what they do on their off time these days. I could lose clients for speaking my mind. We've got all this freedom, and yet are so trapped in our day to day, trying to get by, we can't afford to step out of line. It's a real juxtaposition. The Land of the Free, but we can't do that. It might hurt us. I think that the vast majority of people on this planet are in a precarious situation. It's one of the things driving our economy. Listen to Alan Greenspan, he'll tell you. Of course it'll be couched in language like 'Flexible Labor markets' and 'Churning' instead of 'Fearing the loss of your job' and being 'unable to support your family', but it's right there, and it's lauded as if it's an asset. It's crazy, but it's real. People that are in a precarious situation are easy to exploit. They shut up, keep their heads down and take care of themselves and their family. It's a real bummer, man. It's great way to make cheap labor, a cowed and apathetic citizenry and to assume control without having to fight. That's my problem, I guess. I don't like to see people exploited and I don't want to be exploited myself. I want to be able to stand up for my community and help protect my family, neighbors and friends and I'd like them to do the same for me. I want to be in control of my life and have a decent opportunity for a happy and healthy future, but I don't see those things happening for many people given the kind of corporate sponsored public policy that we've been existing under for the last couple of decades. Much of this problem can be laid directly at the corporate media's feet. I don't see many people taking on the establishment. I see a lot of excuses, apathy and rationalization that is packaged as 'realism' that does nothing but exacerbate the problem. It's hard to risk speaking freely when nobody has your back. Yea, we have historic levels of free speech, and unlike before, we actually have the right to be heard, given this internet thing, but we also have a system that demands conformity and is extremely unstable for most of us. If I had more BALLS. I'd be talking about this on camera. Everybody here knows I have the opportunity to do so these days, but I'm too scared to do it. One of the reasons that I talk about this here is because I think there is power in this group. There is power and understanding. I believe there are people here who will watch your back and have the capability to do it. blah, blah blah... I could go on all day... Cheers, Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://pawsitivevybe.com/vlog http://pawsitivevybe.com On Dec 28, 2007, at 2:45 PM, Steve Watkins wrote: Advertisers normally like safety. This makes certain kinds of content risky to them, and so if content only gets made to suit them, it has a seriously limiting effect. We now live in an era where if you dont seek ad revenue, then you have the possibility to make stuff that is free from this limitation, and still have more than a few people see it. This has not thus far lead to a huge quantity of radical alternative stuff emerging, so advertising is far from the only factor. There are tons of reasons why the masses could be considered to be asleep, and why there are not all that many people making compelling content to wake them up. I suggest that in places such as the USA and the UK, we are at a peak of free speech. The barriers to speaking your mind are the lowest they will ever be, but its not much of a threat because it occurs at a timer where there arent so many free ears and free minds to do anything with the free speech. If circumstances change, then free speech may become a threat and will be crushed using all the laws being passed this decade. But for now we are doped up on consumption, so its easier to ignore than crush.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Movies v TV (was...My Amends...)
A good argument. I reread the posts a bit a I understand what is meant by the viewer is the product. I think everyone here seems to be saying the same thing in a different way. It's hard to argue that money isn't at the root of everything. Because of this, it's hard to say at the root of it, it's about making the viewer happy because, of course, it isn't. At the root of it, it's the money. Executives may hold a passion for making great entertainment (keyword: may) but in the end they're going to work everyday to put food on their families. Ok, so i'm willing to agree that viewers are the product but I'd have to say it's Network execs that control TV, not the advertisers. There's always a way to make more money. It's the execs, not the advertisers that are the ones aiming to high. Advertisers will purchase viewers but the viewers will always be *somewhere* to purchase. It's the executives that have created a model where all the eggs go into a few select baskets. TV could be riskier, but it's the greed of execs, not advertisers that makes it bland. Reality TV is a perfect example of how to make riskier, better TV without having to worry so much about Advertisers because they can be made on the cheap. Anyway, now I'm just rambling. This is a really interesting conversation though. On Dec 28, 2007 2:45 PM, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Advertisers normally like safety. This makes certain kinds of content risky to them, and so if content only gets made to suit them, it has a seriously limiting effect. We now live in an era where if you dont seek ad revenue, then you have the possibility to make stuff that is free from this limitation, and still have more than a few people see it. This has not thus far lead to a huge quantity of radical alternative stuff emerging, so advertising is far from the only factor. There are tons of reasons why the masses could be considered to be asleep, and why there are not all that many people making compelling content to wake them up. I suggest that in places such as the USA and the UK, we are at a peak of free speech. The barriers to speaking your mind are the lowest they will ever be, but its not much of a threat because it occurs at a timer where there arent so many free ears and free minds to do anything with the free speech. If circumstances change, then free speech may become a threat and will be crushed using all the laws being passed this decade. But for now we are doped up on consumption, so its easier to ignore than crush. If people are having a nice dream, why would they want to be woken up? When the nightmare arrives, they will be desperately seeking a saviour to wake them. I dread to think what who they will end up listening to, hopefully some people will be talking a lot of sense and wont get eliminated. Maybe the net will be a tool that sometimes helps humanity make the right decisions in a difficult era, maybe it will end up a mess of competing propaganda, time will tell. Better Bad News seems to cover several of the themes at hand, including being a show that isnt 'safe', being political, being very worried about the future, and in the latest video mentioning Scoble, in relation to Obama and the S-1959 bill which is seen as a an anti- thought crimes on the net thang! Anyway that particular bill is probably worthy of its own conversation. http://www.betterbadnews.com/ Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Frank Sinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great discussion - perhaps the briefness of my post was misinterpreted. I'll focus my comments on TV. In the traditional TV biz: 1) Ratings are king. 2) Ratings / demographics / content as a package are sold to advertisers. Studios evaluate new projects based on who and how big the audience is going to be, then how attractive the total package would be to advertisers. The ultimate influence is up to the viewers in deciding what to watch. (ok, that was made very simplistic - but at the end of the day, it is the viewers with that remote control who decide what to watch that influences these decisions.) The great part of new media is that you have direct contact with audiences. You don't need that studio exec middle man to decide if they think there will be an audience or not. Regards, -Frank http://www.mefeedia.com - Discover the Video Web --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack billcammack@ wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson k9disc@ wrote: Sorry I couldn't quote, something weird with the formatting Frank, I think you are mixing up different segments of the corporate media a bit here. There are the loyal viewers of the repetitive television market with the one shot nature of the movies. They are entirely
[videoblogging] Re: Movies v TV (was...My Amends...)
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have to agree with Frank here. I don't believe sitcom writers sit down and discuss how to control their audiences into buying toasters strudel. That's true. Nobody said that they do. :) Your statement assumes direct contact between the production company and the advertisers. You're cutting out the middleman, the network. The network pays the production company to make the show. The advertiser pays the network to advertise ON that show (or on a particular channel or whatever). The production team wouldn't be interested in writing for advertisers because A) they get their money straight from the network that picked up the show, and B) you'll notice that there are often SEVERAL advertisers on a particular show, AND they might switch advertisers to boot. To give an internet example... Ze Frank's last week of The Show was sponsored by scotch-maker Dewar's http://newteevee.com/2007/03/12/ze-frank-blip/ When he started his show, Ze Frank didn't know A) that his show was going to be successful, B) that anyone would want to sponsor it or C) that it would be Dewar's, so there's no reason that he would write his show to control his audience into buying Dewar's. I think they just try to write funny shows, or dramatic shows, etc. (keyword: try) Shows that are likely to get good ratings/demographics get picked up. Agreed. Still, the demographic you choose is going to affect your writing. Since you know a lot of Americans were crying about Michael Vick killing dogs, you're *NOT* going to write an episode about killing dogs, BECAUSE you don't want to alienate your demographic. You're also not going to write an episode portraying Michael Vick as a hero, for the same reason. I'd be interested in hearing a specific example to support the other theory, let alone examples showing that that theory represents the majority of TV content. I'm not sure which theory you're referring to, but the way shows get on the air is you come up with an idea, you pitch it to a production team, get them to make a pilot (or pay for professional shooters, producers and editors to do it out-of-pocket yourself), shop that pilot to networks and hope they buy it instead of stealing your idea and making it themselves. :) There is *NO* part in the process where average joes have any SAY over the creation OR picking up of shows. Their input is useful for focus groups, but that's it. The viewers are studied so you don't accidentally shop a pilot about killing dogs, but other than that, the viewers don't have JACK to do with anything except for tuning in or not after the fact. The show sinks or swims with the viewers, for sure, but that's because the viewers are the product that's being sold to the advertisers. It's like how you can't have a supermarket without food... that would be just a useless building to someone that's hungry. :) -- Bill Cammack CammackMediaGroup.com People will watch good tv and advertisers will spend their money on the demographics they seek. On Dec 28, 2007 1:29 PM, Frank Sinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great discussion - perhaps the briefness of my post was misinterpreted. I'll focus my comments on TV. In the traditional TV biz: 1) Ratings are king. 2) Ratings / demographics / content as a package are sold to advertisers. Studios evaluate new projects based on who and how big the audience is going to be, then how attractive the total package would be to advertisers. The ultimate influence is up to the viewers in deciding what to watch. (ok, that was made very simplistic - but at the end of the day, it is the viewers with that remote control who decide what to watch that influences these decisions.) The great part of new media is that you have direct contact with audiences. You don't need that studio exec middle man to decide if they think there will be an audience or not. Regards, -Frank http://www.mefeedia.com - Discover the Video Web --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack billcammack@ wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson k9disc@ wrote: Sorry I couldn't quote, something weird with the formatting Frank, I think you are mixing up different segments of the corporate media a bit here. There are the loyal viewers of the repetitive television market with the one shot nature of the movies. They are entirely different markets with entirely different sales models and entirely different customers. For the most part, the movies are owned by corporations and TV is sponsored by corporations. Of course this is starting to change a bit with product placement and such, but it's still quite true. In television the viewer is the product being sold. The idea that the viewer gets what
[videoblogging] Re: Movies v TV (was...My Amends...)
Great points Bill and on target as always.I could learn a lot from you, no doubt.. Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp pdelongchamp@ wrote: I have to agree with Frank here. I don't believe sitcom writers sit down and discuss how to control their audiences into buying toasters strudel. That's true. Nobody said that they do. :) Your statement assumes direct contact between the production company and the advertisers. You're cutting out the middleman, the network. The network pays the production company to make the show. The advertiser pays the network to advertise ON that show (or on a particular channel or whatever). The production team wouldn't be interested in writing for advertisers because A) they get their money straight from the network that picked up the show, and B) you'll notice that there are often SEVERAL advertisers on a particular show, AND they might switch advertisers to boot. To give an internet example... Ze Frank's last week of The Show was sponsored by scotch-maker Dewar's http://newteevee.com/2007/03/12/ze-frank-blip/ When he started his show, Ze Frank didn't know A) that his show was going to be successful, B) that anyone would want to sponsor it or C) that it would be Dewar's, so there's no reason that he would write his show to control his audience into buying Dewar's. I think they just try to write funny shows, or dramatic shows, etc. (keyword: try) Shows that are likely to get good ratings/demographics get picked up. Agreed. Still, the demographic you choose is going to affect your writing. Since you know a lot of Americans were crying about Michael Vick killing dogs, you're *NOT* going to write an episode about killing dogs, BECAUSE you don't want to alienate your demographic. You're also not going to write an episode portraying Michael Vick as a hero, for the same reason. I'd be interested in hearing a specific example to support the other theory, let alone examples showing that that theory represents the majority of TV content. I'm not sure which theory you're referring to, but the way shows get on the air is you come up with an idea, you pitch it to a production team, get them to make a pilot (or pay for professional shooters, producers and editors to do it out-of-pocket yourself), shop that pilot to networks and hope they buy it instead of stealing your idea and making it themselves. :) There is *NO* part in the process where average joes have any SAY over the creation OR picking up of shows. Their input is useful for focus groups, but that's it. The viewers are studied so you don't accidentally shop a pilot about killing dogs, but other than that, the viewers don't have JACK to do with anything except for tuning in or not after the fact. The show sinks or swims with the viewers, for sure, but that's because the viewers are the product that's being sold to the advertisers. It's like how you can't have a supermarket without food... that would be just a useless building to someone that's hungry. :) -- Bill Cammack CammackMediaGroup.com People will watch good tv and advertisers will spend their money on the demographics they seek. On Dec 28, 2007 1:29 PM, Frank Sinton frank@ wrote: Great discussion - perhaps the briefness of my post was misinterpreted. I'll focus my comments on TV. In the traditional TV biz: 1) Ratings are king. 2) Ratings / demographics / content as a package are sold to advertisers. Studios evaluate new projects based on who and how big the audience is going to be, then how attractive the total package would be to advertisers. The ultimate influence is up to the viewers in deciding what to watch. (ok, that was made very simplistic - but at the end of the day, it is the viewers with that remote control who decide what to watch that influences these decisions.) The great part of new media is that you have direct contact with audiences. You don't need that studio exec middle man to decide if they think there will be an audience or not. Regards, -Frank http://www.mefeedia.com - Discover the Video Web --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack billcammack@ wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson k9disc@ wrote: Sorry I couldn't quote, something weird with the formatting Frank, I think you are mixing up different segments of the corporate media a bit here. There are the loyal viewers of the repetitive television market with the one shot nature of the movies. They are entirely different markets with entirely different sales models and entirely different customers. For the
[videoblogging] Re: Movies v TV (was...My Amends...)
Yes, this is better said than I could have ... stick together. Be supportive. Be honest. Be yourself. and Blah Blah Blah... Stickman! Posse! Goomba! To both you and Steve W, good stuff. D Yeah ... I got your back ANY DAY. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of the reasons that I talk about this here is because I think there is power in this group. There is power and understanding. I believe there are people here who will watch your back and have the capability to do it. blah, blah blah... I could go on all day... Cheers,
[videoblogging] Re: Movies v TV (was...My Amends...)
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well Madonna said that she wanted to be like Gandhi, John Lennon, Martin Luther King, Jesus, but she wanted to stay alive! Lol on several levels :D If only she wanted to be like Marcel Marceau... ;)
